Posted on 03/21/2017 9:16:13 AM PDT by metmom
“But emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7).
As part of His humble descent from Heaven to earth, Jesus set aside the exercise of His divine privileges.
The next step in Jesus’ pattern of humility as He came to earth and lived among mankind was His emptying of Himself. But Scripture is clear that while on earth our Lord claimed to be God: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). At no time did He stop being God.
The Greek word for “emptied” gives us the theological term kenosis, the doctrine of Christ’s self-emptying. The kenosis basically reminds us of what we saw in yesterday’s lesson: Jesus’ humble refusal to cling to His advantages and privileges in Heaven. The Son of God, who has a right to everything and is fully satisfied within Himself, voluntarily emptied Himself.
We have already noted that Jesus did not empty Himself of His deity, but He did lay aside certain prerogatives. For one thing, He gave up His heavenly glory. That’s why, in anticipation of His return to the Father, Christ prayed, “Glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I ever had with Thee before the world was” (John 17:5).
Jesus also relinquished His independent authority and completely submitted Himself to the Father’s will: “Not as I will, but as Thou wilt” (Matt. 26:39).
During His time on earth, Christ also voluntarily limited the use and display of His divine attributes. One good illustration of this concerned His omniscience, His knowledge of all things. In teaching about the end-times and His second coming, Jesus said, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Matt. 24:36).
Jesus’ self-emptying demonstrates a wonderful aspect of the gospel. Unlike man-centered, works-oriented religions, the biblical gospel has God’s Son willingly yielding His privileges to sacrifice Himself for sinners like us.
Suggestions for Prayer
Pray that you would become more appreciative of the sacrificial humility Jesus Christ exercised on your behalf.
For Further Study
Scripture does not record a lot about Jesus’ boyhood. But the account we do have verifies His emptying. Read Luke 2:39-52. What does verse 47 imply about Jesus’ nature? How do verses 51-52 exemplify His emptying?
It is usually the catholic who resorts to the verbal attack when the argument goes against them.
You prove my point again.
I’m not a Catholic.
Again, my apologies for the confusion.
Actually this latest ad hominem is another example of a double standard or blindness, for it was you who sarcastically called me "genius" ("Well genius, you might want to let authors in the OT...know about that"), inferring mental deficiency on my part, and my substantiated reasoned response an "attempt to further muddy the waters, that, and your need to spout off." So much for self-righteous "Christian" fruit.
“…the word apocrypha as it is a word that is greatly misunderstood. It comes from Greek and is formed from the combination of apo (away) and krytein (hide or conceal). Thus, it signifies that which is ‘hidden away’ or ‘concealed’. Apocryphan is the singular form and apocrypha the plural..., the word apocrypha ORIGINALLY MEANT A TEXT TOO SACRED AND SECRET TO BE IN EVERYONES HANDS.
Your already marginal credibility continues to degrade. You first invoke a feminist (likely Mormonic) whose interest is in finding women of God - whom she seems to think is plural - and by skullduggery asserts that God meant for women to be "equal partner to her husband, corresponding to him in every way," even to be his savior.
Seeking female heroes, she finds women from Pseudepigrapha - falsely-attributed works - and apocryphal works, and thus she tries to elevate such works as being TOO SACRED AND SECRET TO BE IN EVERYONES HANDS based on the "original meaning of apocrypha, " which etymologically is from Greek apokryphos "hidden; obscure, hard to understand...from apo "off, away" (see apo-) + kryptein "to hide" (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Apocrypha)
However, "cute" used to mean bow-legged; "bully" originally meant darling or sweetheart; "Nice" originally meant stupid or foolish; "counterfeit" used to mean a legitimate copy, and the way this word apocrypha was used is the issue. And rather than meaning that the apocrypha were considered too sacred and secret to be in everyone's hands, Jerome described the extra 7 Old Testament books as apocrypha, and it was not because they were secret, but were actually part of later versions of the Greek LXX, which likely existed by the 2nd century.
Thus your conspiratorial "TOO SECRET TO BE IN EVERYONES HANDS" is simply inaccurate.
You can find more information about apocryphal books here: https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/30/marriage-of-mary-to-joseph-the-carpenter/
So now you send me to a Muslim site, " dedicated to providing constructive responses and refutations against Islamophobes" as a credible source? "Asalam o Alikum Brother, you are doing a very noble and good job mashALLAH."
Which is where you get your error that "Joseph [was] 90 years old when married" among other fables? This is the same Muslims who (faced with their leader taking a 9-year-iold bride) assert that Dinah (who left home to visit the daughters of the land) in Gn. 34 at the time of her marriage was no older than 7-years-old (based on the LIE that the word for "damsel" in Genesis 34:3 must mean "child” and “infant” here, contrary to its use . And that Rebecca was between the ages of 3-10, when she was married off to 40-year-old Isaac. How far in the bottom of the rubbish barrel do you have to resort to?
Make sure you review the information concerning the book of Hebrews, or research it online, you might find it interesting.
You mean another late (6th or early 7th century) wannabe from Egypt?
The more you argue the more you are an argument against yourself.
Well, there was this Catholic site I thought about sending you to, but you seem to hate Catholics more than Muslims.
More like Muslim or Mormon sympathies or just naive, careless or desperate recourse considering the main sources above. Mormonic thought has a vested interest in debasing Scripture as the sole supreme standard, as do Muslims, while the absurd “conclusions” such Muslims come up with from their reading/contorting Scripture is worse than atheists. Which takes some doing!
HMMMmmm... 'A bit' is WAY different sounding than 76 years!!!
That was indeed an understatement. Sorry if we seem harsh, amorphous (having no definite form or distinct shape), but defending Scriptural Truth is very important to us, and your sources are contrary to that, and also have gone from bad to worse.
But I do care about you, and may God be merciful to you, and grant you repentance unto the acknowledging of the Truth. (2Tim. 2:25)
You confuse a defense of the Truth as hatred toward others. It is not hatred. It is a sincere desire to teach the Truth. Catholics, not that you’re one by your admission, make the same erroneous charge. Some, when confronted with a rebuttal of their errors are easily offended and mistake the information as hatred or an attack.The electronic medium does not allow for emotion to be easily conveyed thus further compounding the problem.
You probably meant Abishag the Shunnamite (I Kings 1:1–4, 15) .
You, nor others on this thread have any moral high ground to criticize Catholics, or anyone else for that manner, for making erroneous charges, as we've witnessed you and your fellows here, make plenty.
What should've/could've been a friendly/respectable discussion has turned into a hate fest; condemning Jews, Catholics, Mormons, and maybe even Hindus, IIRC.
I know you feel you're right, and of course, I know I'm right, but who's right isn't important. How we treat one another, especially when it comes to our fellow Christians, is far more important.
If we are not careful, it is written, in condemning others we inadvertently condemn ourselves - you should be able to look that up for yourself.
Good nite....
Face it. The position you were holding is untenable.
So you are presuming that because something isn’t outright contradicted, such as the ages of Mary and Joseph, that they should be accepted as true?
Man, what a way to leave yourself wide open to deception.
Anyone can claim anything and then demand you disprove it to prove it’s false.
Actually, it’s up to those making the claim that what they are claiming is true.
And say so from a shown and known error ridden text does NOT qualify as truth or proof.
And how is exposing error a “ hate fest”?
Can you perhaps tell us how to expose error without being called “ bigots”, “ haters”, or “anti-’s”?
Anytime we show the error that some group believes or teaches by pointing out or posting Scripture to correct it, we get those slurs thrown at us.
Which was precipitated by your use of "well genius" in regards to daniel1212.
You will find we're all about having a spirited debate. No problem with that.
You named four groups who do not hold to the teachings of the NT. I would argue that it's better to have your feelings pricked now if it brings you to the truth of the NT rather than later at the judgment when it's too late. The Gospel does convict people of their error. No apologies are offered for that.
For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Hebrews 4:12 NASB
HMMMmmm...
I wonder why ROME didn't want them?
One man's trash, is another man's treasure.
I was called ugly by a toad once.
Whatever, take your bigotry and stuff it.
I'm part of 'All'.
I shall now consider myself stuffed.
"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours."
--Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)
Well; Mormonism does have a heavy-handed; top down structure quite similar to...
Mormonism
|
Catholicism
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.